| Comment Number: | OL-10509195 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 1:38:07 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
General: I believe the proposed NSPS will undermine the Civil Service and hurt the mission of the DoD employees. Subpart C Pay, Sections 9901.301 to .373: The employees in DoD should continue to receive the same annual pay across-the-board adjustment that other FS/FWS workers receive. The individual pay increases for performance should include guaranteed percentages in the regulations so that employees will understand the pay system and what their pay increase will be depending on their performance. Subpart D Performance Management-.401 to .409: In order to insure fairness and accuracy, DoD employees should be able to appeal any performance rating to an independent grievance and arbitration process like they can do now. Subpart F Workforce Shaping .6012. to .611: DoD should not change the current layoff/RIF rules which give balanced credit to performance and the employees valuable years of committed service to DoD. Subpart G Adverse Actions-.701 to .810: Due process and fairness demand that the independent body reviewing a major suspension as termination be allowed to alter the proposed penalty if they deem it to be unreasonable. The current standards approved by the courts to guide such bodies should continue to be used. Subpart I Labor/Management Relations .901 to .929: The labor management law that has governed the employees’ right to organize and engage in collective bargaining has worked well since 1978. There is no compelling reason to take away most of the collective bargaining rights or grievance rights. DoD should not create a “company dominated dispute board.” Any dispute board must be “jointly selected” by management and the Union. I and other government employees, working under the FERS retirement plan will have little to no incentive to work after we become 62 years old on the proposed plan. By people retiring at 62 years of age instead of staying longer as full time individuals paying into Social Security, we will retire thereby adding to the financial problems already causing Social Security problems. Things objected to and cause for retiring: 1 Possible pay reduction yearly 2 No cost of living given; knowing taxes, utilities, etc, increase yearly 3 Suerpvisors totally in charge of giving pay increases to his/her friend, etc. instead of employees doing good jobs but no pay raise because boss doesn't like them and doesn't have to justify anything. These are a few comments, but this entire proposal needs to be cancelled and don't attempt to change the present plan. Sincerely, Patrice Cornick